Is This True?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by shazeep

hmm. as one of the guests invited from the street (gentiles, pagans, ...), most of which managed to 'get' wedding clothes, it seems to me that the naked man still must rep a 'professed believer' in our lexicon, and not someone who never professed, and yet 'successfully' attended. And you say 'were given' wedding clothes, but aren't these our works, and the clothes rewards for them? Not to imply that your quote does not have some application--reading it from my pov just described threw me into this weird alt reflection of..."doer v sayer," and while i think the naked guy more closely reps those who cry Lord. Lord than those who said When did we see you?, it does intro an interesting, similar but different reflection.

You would have to convince me some more that naked guy repped those obviously surprised to be successfully invited for me to see that as contrasting evidence, which since he ended up with gnashed teeth i don't think is possible.



ok, now the workers who came late for the same wages accurately reps those who asked when did we see you thirsty, and give you water?, but not the naked man, who ended up rejected, imo.

also the naked man does not seem to rep someone 'saved,' with no 'clothing' (as in a believer's rewards), but someone who was 'invited from the street' (gentile), but had no works, not even unto salvation (asking Christ to come into his heart), neverminding about a 'believer' (who at least did all those things we accept as prerequisites for being saved, pentecostal style) who nonetheless had none of the works required to earn 'rewards' (sword, shield , helmet, beastplate, etc)...so, a more pointed parable for your argument, and one illuminating some other interesting parallels, but prolly still not enough to give Rex pause?

awesome kind of trichotomy goin on there, tho; i usually reserve the meatier study for after i'm fully awake, so my head is moving around all funny inside at the moment. i'll def check out the relation of the other parables you mention...but prolly one at a time!

I am working on a painting project as evidenced by my break last night to respond. I have a deadline, so I may not get to be involved much hereafter.

Anyway, I'm not willing to discuss anything concerning RJ other than to provide some good audio.

Nothing in those parables give me pause other than to understand that He came unto His own and His own received Him not. (John 1:1) So, He turned to the Gentiles.

From the point of inviting them to the wedding and the attendance of those invited, a process was in place that qualified them to wear the required wedding apparel. If that was not the case, I would wonder at the angst against the man who showed up without the proper apparel proving that he did not belong to the wedding party. I would be more concerned with the fact that it did not concern the man to be properly prepared before he showed up. It was a black tie event, so to speak. And it will be a black tie event at the marriage supper of the Lamb.

If God says only the righteous will inherit eternal life, the wedding guests were made righteous between point A and B. He doesn't say something in His Word and then make allowance for other interpretations.

He divides the wheat from the chaff (Matthew 3:12); the wheat from the tares (Matthew 13:26-27); the just from the wicked (Matthew 13:48-49); the wise from the foolish (Matthew 25:1-2); the sheep from the goats (Matthew 25:33)

And, BTW, as much as some would like to be "accommodating", the Apostles only preached one message of salvation.